8/18/2015

www.taxmann.com

TransfereeCo.canchangeitsnameasperAmalgamation
Scheme
August14,2015

[2015]60taxmann.com220(Madras)

CL : Where scheme of amalgamation provided that name of

transferee company would be deemed to have been changed to
name of transferor company but Regional Director raised an
objection that transferee company would follow Procedures and
Ruleslaiddownforsuchchangeofname,schemebeingpassedby
requisitemajorityaslaiddownundersection391theredidnotexist
any necessity to have a repeated exercise of same in terms of
section 21 of Companies Act, 1956 as amended by section 13 of
CompaniesAct,2013

[2015]60taxmann.com220(Madras)
HIGHCOURTOFMADRAS
MichelinIndia(P.)Ltd.
v.
MichelinIndiaTamilnaduTyres(P.)Ltd.
R.MAHADEVAN,J.
C.P.NOS.391&392OF2014
FEBRUARY4,2015
P.H.AravindhPandian,Sr.Counsel,HarishankarManiandM.Gopikrishnanforthe
Petitioner.P.AchuthaRamaiahfortheOfficialLiquidator.
ORDER

1.TheseCompanyPetitionsarepreferredunderSections391to394oftheCompaniesAct,
1956, for sanctioning the Scheme of Amalgamation of the Transferor Company viz.,
M/s.MichelinIndiaPrivateLimited,withtheTransfereeCompanyviz.,M/s.MichelinIndia
TamilNadu Tyres Private Limited, with effect from 1st April 2014. The Scheme of
Amalgamation is annexed as Annexure4 in C.P.No. 391 of 2014 and as Annexure5 in
C.P.No.392of2014.
2.The petitioner in C.P.No.391 of 2014 is the Transferor Company and the petitioner in
C.P.No.392of2014istheTransfereeCompany.
3.AccordingtothepetitionerCompanyinC.P.No.391of2014viz.,TransferorCompany,
it was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, on 12.11.2003. A copy of the
MemorandumandArticlesofAssociationismarkedasAnnexure1.TheAuthorisedShare
Capitalason31.03.2014isRs.2,18,00,00,000/,21,80,00,000equitysharesofRs.10each.
Issued,SubscribedandPaidupShareCapitalofthepetitionerCompanyason31.03.2014
is Rs.1,14,16,41,600/, 11,41,64,160 equity shares of Rs.10 each. A copy of the latest
https://corporatelaws.taxmann.com/fileopennew.aspx?id=101010000000162953&mode=home&page=

1/8

8/18/2015

www.taxmann.com

financialstatementason31.03.2014ismarkedasAnnexure2.TheBoardofDirectorsas
its meeting held on 20.10.2014 approved the Scheme of Amalgamation, subject to
confirmationbythisCourt.AcopyofthesaidBoardResolutionismarkedasAnnexure3.
Under the Scheme, the entire undertaking of the Transferor Company would stand
transferred to theTransferee Company on and from 01.04.2014. The Scheme of
AmalgamationismarkedasAnnexure4.PursuanttothisScheme,theTransferorCompany
shall issue and allot equity shares of Rs.10/ each, as fully paidup at par to each
shareholderoftheTransferorCompanyintheratioof26equitysharesofRs.10eachfully
paidupoftheTransfereeCompanytobeissuedforeverytenequitysharesofRs.10each
fullypaidupoftheTransferorCompany,heldbytheshareholder.Theoriginalvaluation
report is marked as Annexure5. The Transferor Company has no secured creditors. The
Certificate issued by the auditor of the Transferor Company stating that there are no
secured creditors is marked as Annexure6. The number of equity shareholders in the
Transferor is two and the said list is marked as Annexure7. In Company Application
No.1101of2014,thisCourt,byorderdated21.11.2014,hasdispensedwiththeconvening,
holdingandconductingmeetingoftheequityshareholdersoftheTransferorCompanyfor
thepurposeofconsidering,andifthoughtfit,approvingwithorwithoutmodification,the
SchemeofAmalgamation.
4. According to the petitioner Company in C.P.No.392 of 2014/Transferee Company, it
was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, on 24.04.2009. A copy of the
MemorandumandArticlesofAssociationismarkedasAnnexure1.TheAuthorisedShare
Capital as on 31.03.2014 is Rs.25,00,00,00,000/ , 2,50,00,00,000 equity shares of Rs.10
each. Issued, Subscribed and Paidup Share Capital of the petitioner Company as on
31.03.2014 is Rs.21,02,28,03,310/, 2,10,22,80,331 equity shares of Rs.10 each. The
TransfereeCompanyhasissued50,70,00,000equitysharesand15,99,99,999equityshares
ofRs.10eachtoitsholdingcompanyon22.07.2014and23.09.2014.Theauthorisedcapital
hasbeenincreasedto5,00,00,00,000equitysharesofRs.10eachon18.06.2014.Acopyof
respective EForms filed with ROC for allotment of such equity shares is annexed as
Annexure2. A copy of the latest financial statement as on 31.03.2014 is marked as
Annexure3. The Board of Directors as its meeting held on 13.10.2014 approved the
SchemeofAmalgamation,subjecttoconfirmationbythisCourt.AcopyofthesaidBoard
Resolution is marked as Annexure4. Under the Scheme, the entire undertaking of the
Transferor Company would stand transferred to the Transferee Company on and from
01.04.2014. The Scheme of Amalgamation is marked as Annexure5. Pursuant to this
Scheme, the Transferee Company shall issue and allot equity shares of Rs.10/ each, as
fullypaidupatpartoeachshareholderoftheTransferorCompanyintheratioof26equity
shares of Rs.10 each fully paidupof theTransfereeCompany to be issued for everyten
equity shares of Rs.10 each fully paidup of the Transferor Company, held by the
shareholder. The original valuation report is marked as Annexure6. The Transferee
Companyhasnosecuredcreditors.TheCertificateissuedbytheauditoroftheTransferee
CompanystatingthattherearenosecuredcreditorsismarkedasAnnexure7.Thenumber
of equity shareholders in the Transferee Company is two and the said list is marked as
Annexure8. In Company Application No.1102 of 2014, this Court, by order dated
21.11.2014, has dispensed with the convening, holding and conducting meeting of the
equity shareholders of the petitioner Company for the purpose of considering, and if
thoughtfit,approvingwithorwithoutmodification,theSchemeofAmalgamation.
5. The assets of the Transferor Company and the Transferee Company are more than
sufficienttomeettheliabilitiesofbothCompaniesandthesaidSchemewillnotadversely
affecttherightsofanyofthecreditorsofthepetitionerCompany.TheproposedSchemeof
AmalgamationisbeneficialtobothTransferorandtheTransfereeCompany.
6. A perusal of the records show that the petitioners have complied with the prescribed
procedure. In the Transferor Company viz., petitioner in C.P.No. 391 of 2014 and the
https://corporatelaws.taxmann.com/fileopennew.aspx?id=101010000000162953&mode=home&page=

2/8

8/18/2015

www.taxmann.com

TransfereeCompanyviz.,petitionerinC.P.No.392of2014,therearenosecuredcreditors
and the Chartered Accountant Certificates certifying to that effect have been filed as
AnnexureNos.6and7intherespectivepetitions.
7. The copy of the Resolution, dated 20.10.2014, of the Board of Directors of the
Transferor and the Transferee Company respectively adopting the Scheme of
AmalgamationisenclosedasAnnexureNos.3and4intherespectivepetitions.
8.TheconsentaffidavitsfromtheequityshareholderstotheSchemeofAmalgamationfor
approving the Scheme of Amalgamation is marked as Annexure Nos. 8 and 9 in the
respectivepetitions.
9. By order, dated 21.11.2014, in C.A.Nos. 1101 and 1102 of 2014 in the case of the
TransferorCompanyandtheTransfereeCompanyrespectively,thisCourt,dispensedwith
the convening, holding and conducting of the meeting of the equity shareholders for the
purpose of considering and if thought fit, approving with or without modification, the
SchemeofAmalgamationoftheTransferorCompanywiththeTransfereeCompany.
10. On notice, the Regional Director, Ministry of Company Affairs, has filed his report
raisingthefollowingobjection:
"6.Itisrepectfullysubmittedthatasperpara15oftheScheme,uponsanctioningof
the Scheme, the name of the Transferee Company shall be deemed to have been
changedto"MichelinIndiaPrivateLimited"i.e.,thenameoftheTransferorCompany.
However, as per General Circular No.45/2011, dated 8.7.2011 (Annexure "A") of
Ministry of Corporate Affairs on Name Availability Guidelines, 2011, a proposed
name is considered to be undesirable if it is identical with or too nearly resembling
withnameofthecompanyinexistenceandnamesalreadyapprovedbytheRegistrar
of Companies. The Transferee Company shall follow the Procedures and Rules laid
downforsuchchangeofname".
11. Referring to the above objection, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, for the
proposition that only after sanctioning of the Scheme, the Scheme of Amalgamation
provides for change of name, therefore, the question of existence of the Transferor
Companydoesnotarise,hasreliedonanunreportedjudgmentofthisCourtinC.P.Nos.54
to56of2014,wherein,thisCourtbyorderdated17.03.2014,inparagraphNo.5hasheldas
follows:
"5.Onnotice,theRegionalDirector,MinistryofCorporateAffairshasfiledhisreport.
In this case, the transferee company takes over the name of the first transferor
company,forwhich,thereappearstobeatechnicalobjectionraisedbytheRegional
Director,MinistryofCorporateAffairs.Sinceacomprehensiveorderisbeingpassed
for amalgamation of both the transferor companies with the transferee company and
onlyaftersanctioningofthescheme,theschemeofamalgamationprovidesforchange
of name as per paragraph 14.1 of the scheme, the question of existence of the first
transferorcompanydoesnotarise.Theobjectionthatitwillbeagainsttheguidelines
of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs also does not arise, as the transferee company
alonewillbeinexistenceafteramalgamationofthetwotransferorcompanieswiththe
transfereecompany."
Relying on the above decision, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit
that the objection of the Regional Director that it will be against the Circular of the
MinistryofCorporateAffairsdoesnotariseforconsideration,astheTransfereeCompany
alone will be in existence after amalgamation of the Transferor Company with the
TransfereeCompany.
12.Nextly,learnedSeniorCounselforthepetitioners,forthepropositionthatSection391
oftheCompaniesActinveststheCourtwithwidepowerstoapproveorsanctionaScheme
https://corporatelaws.taxmann.com/fileopennew.aspx?id=101010000000162953&mode=home&page=

3/8

8/18/2015

www.taxmann.com

ofAmalgamationandindoingso,ifthereareanyotherthingsforeffectuation,requirea
specialproceduretobefollowed,thentheCourthaspowertosanctionit,whilesanctioning
the Scheme itself, relied on the judgment of this Court in C.P.Nos. 7 and 8 of 2012
(reported in (2013) 176 Com.Cases 345 (Mad)), wherein, this Court, by order dated
06.09.2012, referring to the judgment of the Bombay High Court reported in [1994] 80
Comp.Cases289,InRe:PMPAutoIndustriesLimited,andthejudgmentoftheKarnataka
High Court reported in [2009] 150 Comp. Cases 623, Mysore Cements Limited, in
paragraphNos.8and9hasheldasfollows:
"8.TheRegionalDirectoralsoinparagraphs9and10oftheaffidavit,raisedobjection
againstchangeofnameofthetransfereecompanytoM/s.EyeFoundationLtd.,which
isthenameofthetransferorcompany,onthestrengthoftwocircularsissuedbythe
MinistryofCorporateAffairsonMay30,2011andJuly8,2011,inthisregard.Inmy
consideredview,thesameisinapplicabletothecaseinhandasthenamesoughttobe
adopted by the transferee company is the name of the transferor company and the
relevantprovisionsoflawapplicabletothechangeofnamearesections21and23of
the Companies Act. Our High Court, Karnataka and Bombay High Courts, in the
following cases cited on the side of the petitioner, dispensed with the compliance of
Section21onthegroundthatSection391oftheCompaniesActinveststhecourtwith
powers to approve or sanction a scheme of amalgamation/arrangement and in doing
so,ifthereareanyotherthingswhichforeffectuation,requireaspecialprocedureto
be followed except reduction of capital, then the court has power to sanction them,
whilesanctioningtheschemeitselfandsection391isacompletecodeinthenatureof
a "single window clearance" system: (i) order passed by our High Court in
C.P.Nos.177 and 178 of 2008 in Mehala Machines Limited, rep. by the Managing
Director (transferor company) and M/s.Sanmarco Texmac P.Ltd., rep. by Director
(transfereecompany)(ii)MANU/KA/0013/2009:(2009)150CompCases623(Karn)
in (Mysore Cements Ltd., In re) and (iii) MANU/MH/0112/1991: (1994) 80 Comp
Cases289(Bom)in(PMPAutoIndustriesLtd.,Inre).
9. Our High Court has in paragraph 8 of its judgment, dealt with the objection
regardingchangeofnameandnecessityforcomplianceofSections21and23ofthe
CompaniesActwhichreadsasfollows:
8. It may be noted that as per clause 15 of the scheme, upon the scheme becoming
effective,thenameofthetransfereecompanyshallbechangedtoMehalaMachines
India P. Ltd. Normally but for the scheme presented under section 391 of the
Companies Act to effect such a change in the name of a company, the procedure,
undersection21oftheCompaniesActhastobecompliedwith.Sotootheprovisions
ofsection44oftheCompaniesAct.

However,intermsoftheschemepassedbytherequisitemajorityaslaiddownunder
section391oftheActcomplyingwiththeprocedure,laiddownthereon,Idonotfind
that there exists any necessity to have a repeated exercise of the same in terms of
section21oftheAct.ItmaybenotedthatChapterVisacompletecodebyitselfon
the subject of arrangement/compromise and reconstruction comprehensive enough to
includeachangeinthenameconsequentontheamalgamationorarrangement.Similar
viewwastakenbythiscourtinC.P.Nos.133to135of2006,datedAugust19,2006,in
thematterofK.P.R.MillP.Ltd.Thus,theobjectionraisedbytheRegionalDirectoris
satisfactorilyexplained."

Relying on the above decision, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit
that in terms of the Scheme passed by the requisite majority as laid down under Section
391oftheCompaniesActcomplyingwiththeprocedurelaiddownthereon,theredoesnot
existanynecessitytohavearepeatedexerciseofthesameintermsofSection21oftheAct
asamendedbySection13ofthe2013Act.

https://corporatelaws.taxmann.com/fileopennew.aspx?id=101010000000162953&mode=home&page=

4/8

8/18/2015

www.taxmann.com

13. Besides, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the
GujaratHighCourtreportedin[2009]Comp.Cases593,MekasterValvesandEngineering
Services Private Limited, wherein, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Bombay
HighCourtreportedin[1981]51Comp.Case20,VasantInvestmentCorporationLimited
v. Official Liquidator, Colaba Land and Mill Co. Ltd., which has dealt with the wide
powersunderSection391oftheCompaniesAct,1956andhasheldasunder:
"13.In the case of Vasant Investment Corporation Limited v. Official Liquidator,
ColabaLandandMillCo.Ltd.[1981]51CompCases20,theBombayHighCourthas
held that the Court is given wide powers under Section 391 of the Companies Act,
1956, to frame a Scheme for the revival of a Company. Section 391 is a complete
Code under which the Court can sanction a Scheme containing all the alterations
requiredinthestructureoftheCompanyforthepurposeofcarryingouttheScheme,
exceptreductionofsharecapitalwhichrequiresaspecialprocedure.Inconsideringa
Scheme under Section 391, the Court must attach importance to the wishes of the
members. In addition, it should be satisfied (1) that the statutory provisions are
complied with, (ii) that the class affected by the Scheme has been properly
represented, and (iii) that the arrangement is such that a man of business would
reasonablyapprove."
14. Lastly, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court
reported in AIR 2005 SC 3345, Bhagwati Developers v. Peerless General Finance and
Investment Co. and others, wherein, in paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the said judgment, a
referencewasmadetotheSEBIGuidelinesandCirculars,whichreadsasunder:
"5.The appellant challenges the power of the Respondent Company to issue Bonus
SharesoutofRevaluationReserveonthreegroundsviz.(a)thattheBonusShreshad
beenissuedcontrarytoSEBIguidelines,(b)theirissueiscontrarytotheCircularof
theDepartmentofCompanyAffairsdated6thSeptember,1994and(c)thattheissue
couldnothavebeenmadeasitiscontrarytoArticle182oftheArticlesofAssociation
oftheCompany.
6.TheSEBIguidelines,whichhavebeenreliedupon,wereclarifiedon13thAugust,
1992whereinithasbeenstatedthattheseguidelinesdonotapplytoissueofsecurities
by existing private/closely held and other unlisted companies. In view of this
clarification,weseenoinfirmithyintheimpugnedjudgmentwhereinithasbeenheld
thattheSBIguidelineswerenotapplicabletotheRespondentCompany.
7.Wearealsoinagreementwiththeobservation,intheimpugnedJudgment,tothe
effectthattheCirculardated6thSeptember,1994doesnothaveanymandatoryeffect.
TheseCircularsaremerelyadvisoryincharacter."
Relyingontheabovejudgment,learnedSeniorCounselwouldsubmitthattheCircularsof
the Department of Company Affairs are not having any mandatory effect and they are
merelyadvisoryincharacter.
15.Iamalsoinfullagreementwiththeaboveobservationandtherefore,Iamoftheview
thattheCircularreferredtobytheRegionalDirectorinparagraphNo.6,dated08.07.2011
doesnothaveanymandatoryeffectanditismerelyadvisoryincharacter.
16.NowcomingtotheobjectionoftheRegionalDirectorastothechangeofname,itmay
benotedthatasperClause15oftheScheme,upontheSchemebeingsanctioned,thename
of the transferee company shall be changed to "M/s.Michelin India Private Limited".
Normally,butfortheSchemepresentedunderSection391oftheCompaniesAct,toeffect
suchachangeinthenameofacompany,theprocedureunderSection21oftheCompanies
ActasamendedbytheSection13ofthe2013Acthastobecompliedwith.However,in
termsoftheSchemepassedbytherequisitemajorityaslaiddownunderSection391ofthe
https://corporatelaws.taxmann.com/fileopennew.aspx?id=101010000000162953&mode=home&page=

5/8

8/18/2015

www.taxmann.com

CompaniesActcomplyingwiththeprocedurelaiddownthereon,Idonotfindthatthere
existsanynecessitytohavearepeatedexerciseofthesameintermsofSection21ofthe
ActasamendedbySection13ofthe2013Act.
17. Before I discuss these provisions, it is worthwhile to refer to Section 13 of the
CompaniesAct,2013(18of2013)(asamendedin2014)(forshorthereinafterreferredto
as"the2013Act"),whichistheamendedprovisionofSection21oftheCompaniesAct,
whichdealswiththe"AlterationofMemorandum"anditreadsasunder:
"13.Alterationofmemorandum
(1) Saveasprovidedinsection61,acompanymay,byaspecialresolutionandafter
complyingwiththeprocedurespecifiedinthissection,altertheprovisionsofits
memorandum.
(2) Any change in the name of a company shall be subject to the provisions of
subsections (2) and (3) of section 4 and shall not have effect except with the
approvaloftheCentralGovernmentinwriting:
Providedthatnosuchapprovalshallbenecessarywheretheonlychangeinthe
nameofthecompanyisthedeletiontherefrom,oradditionthereto,oftheword
"Private",consequentontheconversionofanyoneclassofcompaniestoanother
classinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthisAct.
(3) Whenanychangeinthenameofacompanyismadeundersubsection(2),the
Registrarshallenterthenewnameintheregisterofcompaniesinplaceofthe
oldnameandissueafreshcertificateofincorporationwiththenewnameandthe
changeinthenameshallbecompleteandeffectiveonlyontheissueofsucha
certificate.
(4) Thealterationofthememorandumrelatingtotheplaceoftheregisteredoffice
fromoneStatetoanothershallnothaveanyeffectunlessitisapprovedbythe
Central Government on an application in such form and manner as may be
prescribed.
(5) The Central Government shall dispose of the application under subsection (4)
withinaperiodofsixtydaysandbeforepassingitsordermaysatisfyitselfthat
the alteration has the consent of the creditors, debentureholders and other
persons concerned with the company or that the sufficient provision has been
madebythecompanyeitherfortheduedischargeofallitsdebtsandobligations
orthatadequatesecurityhasbeenprovidedforsuchdischarge.
(6) SaveasprovidedinSection64,acompanyshall,inrelationtoanyalterationof
itsmemorandum,filewiththeRegistrar
(a) thespecialresolutionpassedbythecompanyundersubsection(1)
(b) the approval of the Central Government under sub section (2), if the
alterationinvolvesanychangeinthenameofthecompany.
(7) Whereanalterationofthememorandumresultsinthetransferoftheregistered
officeofacompanyfromoneStatetoanother,acertifiedcopyoftheorderof
theCentralGovernmentapprovingthealterationshallbefiledbythecompany
withtheRegistrarofeachoftheStateswithinsuchtimeandinsuchmanneras
may be prescribed, who shall register the same, and the Registrar of the State
where the registered office is being shifted to, shall issue a fresh certificate of
incorporationindicatingthealteration.
https://corporatelaws.taxmann.com/fileopennew.aspx?id=101010000000162953&mode=home&page=

6/8

8/18/2015

www.taxmann.com

(8) A company, which has raised money from public through prospectus and still
has any unutilised amount out of the money so raised, shall not change its
objects for which it raised the money through prospectus unless a special
resolutionispassedbythecompanyand
(i) thedetails,asmaybeprescribed,inrespectofsuchresolutionshallalso
be published in the newspapers (one in English and one in vernacular
language)whichisincirculationattheplacewheretheregisteredoffice
ofthecompanyissituatedandshallalsobeplacedonthewebsiteofthe
company,ifany,indicatingthereinthejustificationforsuchchange
(ii) thedissentingshareholdersshallbegivenanopportunitytoexitbythe
promoters and shareholders having control in accordance with
regulationstobespecifiedbytheSecuritiesandExchangeBoard.
(9) TheRegistrarshallregisteranyalterationofthememorandumwithrespecttothe
objectsofthecompanyandcertifytheregistrationwithinaperiodofthirtydays
fromthedateoffilingofthespecialresolutioninaccordancewithclause(a)of
subsection(6)ofthissection.
(10) No alteration made under this section shall have any effect until it has been
registeredinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthissection.
(11) Any alteration of the memorandum, in the case of a company limited by
guaranteeandnothavingasharecapital,purportingtogiveanypersonarightto
participateinthedivisibleprofitsofthecompanyotherwisethanasamember,
shallbevoid."
18.Itseemstome,onacloserreadingofSection13ofthe2013Act,asalsoSection21of
the Companies Act, 1956, to which I will presently refer that the amalgamation is
principally an internal arrangement of the company for a mutual benefit in enlarging its
capitalbase.Normally,theprocedureunderSection21oftheCompaniesAct,asamended
asSection13ofthe2013Act,hastobecompliedwith.However,itmaybenotedthaton
conversion,acompanydoesnotceasetoexisttobringintoexistenceanynewcompany.In
theSchemeofthingstoemergeonanamalgamation,aTransferorCompanyisunitedwith
theTransfereeCompany.TheSchemehereincontemplatesachangeintheirname.Inthe
faceofsuchfacts,thequestioniswhetherthepetitioneristobesubjectedtotheprocedure
underSection21oftheCompaniesAct,asamendedasSection13ofthe2013Act.This
Section requires special resolution to be passed on the proposed change of name of the
company and the approval of the Central Government thereupon for changing the
company'sname.ItmaybenotedthatChapterVisacompletecodebyitselfonthesubject
of arrangement/ compromise and reconstruction. It may be noted that Chapter V is a
complete code by itself on the subject of arrangement/compromise and reconstruction
comprehensiveenoughtoincludeachangeinthenameconsequentontheamalgamationor
arrangement. Similar view was taken by this Court in C.P.Nos.133 to 135 of 2006 dated
19.08.2006inthematterofK.P.R.MillPrivateLimitedandalsointhedecisionscitedsupra
by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. Thus, the objection raised by the
RegionalDirectorissatisfactorilyexplained.
19. The Official Liquidator has filed his report along with the report of the Chartered
Accountant.ThereportoftheCharteredAccountantstatesthattheaffairsofthetransferor
company have not been conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of its members
and they do not come across any act of misfeasance by the Directors attracting the
provisionsofSections542and543oftheCompaniesAct,1956.Itisfurtherstatedthatthe
records maintained in the office of the Registrar of Companies were also caused to be
inspectedbythesaidCharteredAccountant.Intheabsenceofanyinferencethattheaffairs
https://corporatelaws.taxmann.com/fileopennew.aspx?id=101010000000162953&mode=home&page=

7/8

8/18/2015

www.taxmann.com

oftheTransferorCompanywerebeingconductedinamannerprejudicialtotheinterestof
its members and in the absence of any comments that the affairs of the Transferor
Company conducted in a manner prejudicial to its members, the Official Liquidator has
filedhisreportbeforethisCourtfororders.
20.IhaveperusedtheSchemefiledintheCompanyPetitions.TheSchemestatesthatthere
is no objectionable feature in the Scheme of Amalgamation detrimental either to the
employeesoftheTransferorCompanyoroftheTransfereeCompany.ThesaidSchemeis
notviolativeofanystatutoryprovisions.TheSchemeisfair,just,soundandisnotagainst
anypublicpolicyorpubicinterest.NoproceedingsarependingunderSections231to237
oftheCompaniesAct,1956.Allthestatutoryprovisionsarecompliedwith.
21.ItisaptandappropriatetopointoutthattheCourtisgivenwidepowersunderSection
391oftheCompaniesAct,1956,toframeaSchemefortherevivalofaCompany.Section
391 is a complete Code under which the Court can sanction a Scheme containing all the
alterations required in the structure of the Company for the purpose of carrying out the
Scheme.InconsideringaSchemeunderSection391,theCourtshouldbesatisfied(1)that
the statutory provisions are complied with, (ii) that the class affected by the Scheme has
been properly represented and (iii) that the arrangement is such that a man of business
wouldreasonablyapprove.
22.InthelightofthefactthattheSchemeispassedthroughtheprocedurelaiddownunder
Section391oftheCompaniesActandapprovedbythemajorityoftheshareholders,Ido
notfindthatthereexistsanynecessitytohavearepeatedcomplianceofthesameinterms
ofSection21oftheCompaniesAct,asamendedasSection13ofthe2013Act.
23.Intheabovecircumstance,IdonotfindanyimpedimentinapprovingtheSchemeof
Amalgamation.Consequently,followingthedecisionscitedsupra,thereshallbeanorder
approvingtotheSchemeofAmalgamationoftheTransferorcompanyviz.,M/s.Michelin
IndiaPrivateLimited,thepetitionerinC.P.No.391of2014,withtheTransfereeCompany,
viz., M/s.Michelin India TamilNadu Tyres Private Limited, petitioner in C.P.No.392 of
2014,asprovidedinAnnexureNos.4and5respectivelyintheseCompanyPetitions,with
effectfrom1stApril2014,astheprocedurelaiddownunderSections391and394ofthe
CompaniesActaredulycompliedwith.TheseCompanyPetitionsareallowed.
24. Taking note of the report by the Chartered Accountant as enclosed by the Official
Liquidator,intermsoftheorderpassedbythisCourt,theTransferorCompanyshallstand
dissolvedwithoutwindingup.
25. The learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel is entitled to a fee of
Rs.5,000/fromtheTransfereeCompany.

https://corporatelaws.taxmann.com/fileopennew.aspx?id=101010000000162953&mode=home&page=

8/8